Pre gunpowder era infantry was a meme I'm convinced it was some kind of prank why the fuck would anyone bother with them when cavalry and archers exist?
>muh extensive training
fucking Goth and Vandal barbarian forest niggers living in mud huts and singing hakuna matata every evening was cavalry oriented and you're telling me more civilized people couldn't pull it off?
Infantrymen were rused.
> horses cost more upkeep
> peasants cant afford upkeep of horses
>>1293997
Bur barbarians could huh?
>>1294012
Barbarians didn't have complicated feudal systems. They were fucking skulls in their mudhuts and couldn't care less
Thats a special kind of stupid.
>>1293989
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Cavalry is only good for harrying. The core of any successful army has, with few exceptions, always been polearm bearers.
>>1293989
Cavalry was garbage until the invention of the stirrup. Then it did dominate the battlefield.
Too expensive for professional armies to field in large numbers.
>>1293989
Except bows were pretty shit at killing large numbers of people in battle. Go look up the battle of Towton, where you had 20-30,000 longbowmen between the two sides firing at each other for HOURS and still not decisively defeating each other.
And cavalry can't pack as much lethality per foot of engagement as infantry. A man on a horse occupies more space than a man on foot, and can't stand planted and use heavier polearms or even bows as much as one on foot.
Infantry is necessary you imbecile.
>>1293989
Infantry is the core of the military. You have plenty of battles where large groups of cavalry were defeated by an infantry standing their ground (Most infamous exemple : Battle of Coutrai, 1302). Infantry costs less upkeep, has a greater body, is easier to train. Even knights, who were reknowned as heavy cavalry, could get down their horses and act as heavy infantry instead (Battle of Agincourt, for exemple).
>>1293989
Not to mention that it's a pretty big myth that barbarians had a shit ton of horses. The mongols did and other people's from the steppes like the Magyars. Heck the hundreds didn't even use that many horses because they couldn't support them. Most other barbarians were just a bunch of villages dudes who were like, I need to join me a warband so I can stop farming mud. Once they did that it was basically a shit ton of running and spear shit
>>1294201
Huns* my phone autocorrected sorry guys
>>1294143
Tell that to Mongols.
>>1294219
Except the Mongols brought significant numbers of both infantry and hand to hand cavalry. This 100% horse archers thing is memery of the highest order.
>>1294012
WHich Barbarians?
Because Steppe Nomads, while they can raise horses easier than settled cunts, a horse-owning man is by no means a "peasant" among them.
If we're talking of European "Barbarians" like Celts and Germans, these found raising horses VERY problematic, like their medieval descendants later on. Like them only rich warriors can own horses.
>>1294012
They didn't spend time and resources tilling the land, paying as much taxes, building cities and fortifications and elaborate infastructure (roads, docks, etc.), so yeah.
>>1294226
Vandals and Goths I mentioned you dumb fuck.
Jesus the ammount of delusional infantryboos is insane face it infantry was dog shit fucking meat shield at best.
>>1294230
>Goths
>Vandals
>Cavalry Oriented.
No?
They're just good in cavalry but it doesnt say they have an easier time raising fucking horses.
Someone's been playing too much Attila.
They memed their way to india
>>1294259
elefuns tho
>>1294259
One example does not change the fact that infantry is shit.
>>1294272
ok
Calvary didn't have stirrups back then nor was there horses breed for handling armor so they were more easy to get off their horse so long as they keep them in a fixed position.
Archers couldn't do shit against shields in tight formations. Huns ruined their day by avoiding the fuckers with shields in tight formations and fucked with the ones that didn't have shields or weren't in formation.
Hoplites were made to ruin the day of archers and ancient Calvary. Their spears fucked with Calvary and their shields fucked with archers.
>>1294290
>Calvary didn't have stirrups back then
So? Makes very little difference. But keep on meming
>>1294296
It makes a lot of difference when infantry halts your horse so abruptly you're thrown off it slapstick style.
constantly saying "meme" doesn't really change the fact that Calvary were only good for flanking until the Middle ages.
>>1294296
I see you have never rode a horse.
>>1294307
Stirrups do very little in regards to keeping you on your horse, they are designed for better control and balance while turning. Saddles were plenty good enough before stirrups to hold riders on their horses. Cavalry was used for much more more than flanking, very effectively, well before the middle ages.
Quit repeating pop culture history.
>>1294314
I spent 2 years working with horses and riding which is where i realised the stirrup meme was just that.
>>1294307
>Calvary were only good for flanking until the Middle ages.
hmmmm
>>1294259
Why weren't pikes used again until 16th century?
>>1294315
raiding and recon too I admit and can take out light infantry and archers
but Heavy infantry cancel out your momentum (since horses are smart enough to not run into spears pointing right at them) and essentially trap your usually outnumbered Calvary force in a circle of shields, spears, and swords.
>>1294012
Barbarians lived on steppes, where there was endless land for pasture.
In Europe, pasture land was very limited and expensive.
>>1294337
Sorry, are you really claiming heavy cavalry didn't exist or charge before the middle ages?
>>1294317
Stirrups had less to do with riding and more to do with fighting on top of the horse.
>>1294363
Fighting yes, it will help when leading side to side. That isn't directly related to the decisive charges of medieval knights though, which the stirrup wasn't a factor in.
>>1294368
I don't know why you're implying that I said heavy cavalry was amazing that could beat anything, I'm just calling out your bullshit that it didnt even exist.
>>1294430
The thread is about someone saying that infantry is useless compared to Calvary and archer.
So even if you said it it can't beat everything. OP did say that they can beat all infantry .
>>1294368
Persians didnt have cataphracts during Alexanders conquest
>>1294440
OP is an idiot that goes without saying.
GOLDEN SPURS
I'm a history teacher and infantry was useless.
>>1294505
>useless
Funny how the majority of armies were built up of infantry. Who also did all the holding and heavy lifting with the support of cavalry and archers.
I'm an infantryman and we are useless I only joined to sap tax payers money.
>>1294545
>Full mail
>A fucking new white horse
>But no money for sword or lance left
>>1293989
Because you cant drive group of horses though a mass of spearmen without massive casualties.
I'm United States Army general and we only use infantry as a joke.
>>1293989
I'm guessing you're not much for "book-lernin", so how about you just go watch Braveheart, because it pretty much answers your questions.
>>1294594
Memes aside that is basically true today. Infantry is used for holding ground and thats about it.
>There are people, in this thread, who think Infantry was useless in medieval times
>There are people, in this thread, who don't know anything about the battle of the Golden Spurs
>>1294603
to be fair
not much else can hold ground as well
America not putting much emphasis on ground-holding is the reason they suck at it.
Heavy calavary was superior even in the gun powder age. The only problems calavary ever had was when chariots go btfo by iron age spears, javelins, and new formations like the phalanx
>>1293997
>peasants in a feudal army
This meme again
>>1294325
Pikes never fell out of style, the Phalanx formation did.
The Phalanx's main problems are that it is inflexible, it needs to be used in very large numbers to be effective, and requires extensive cavalry support. After Alexander's Empire collapsed, the various successor states opted to mitigate cavalry's usage (Too expensive form them) and just add more pike men to the army. This resulted in them being btfo by the more flexible maniple formations of the Roman army.
Pikes we still popular throughout the middle ages, though in a less prevalent role. They became very prevalent again in the 16th and 17th centuries because they were required to protect musketmen from melee attacks, as they were vulnerable while reloading.
>>1294430
>That isn't directly related to the decisive charges of medieval knights though, which the stirrup wasn't a factor in.
If you are refering to the act of charging with a lance couched under your arm then, yes, a stirrup was in fact necessary. The force would knock you off your horse otherwise. It's not as needed with other forms of attack, though, such as thrusting a spear.
>>1293989
Goths and Vandals weren't forest-niggers. They lived in the steppes among the Scythians for hundreds of years before they invaded the Roman empire.
>>1294062
The stirrup just made it much easier and quicker to train a cavalryman. The actual impact on warfare isn't that great.
>>1296297
Steppe niggers living in mud huts and singing hakuna matata every evening then.
>>1296312
I like this guy
>>1296312
...That's how they became cavalry oriented. You know how people live on the steppe right? All the other Germanic tribes were infantry oriented.
>>1293989
Literally pikemen you nigger. Swiss and Macedonian are both really famous
>>1296311
>The stirrup just improved logistics. The actual impact on warfare isn't that great.
?!
>>1294226
Those horses are illustrated at accurate size, ancient cavalry was an embarrassment.
>>1296311
What is heavy cavalry?
>>1295004
seleucid cav force was better than Alexander's they just had retarded generals who sent it after the baggage train and wrecked their own lines with meme elephants.
>>1297370
Heavy cavalry existed way before the existence of stirrups. Parthian and Sassanid cataphracts existed and were quite effective without stirrups.
>>1293989
What if I tell you that infantry can wield bows?
Infantry can hold positions and defend very well. Archers alone can't do it. Op sound like a retard who thinks that cav archers are the best universal unit. Lrn 2 tactics
>>1293989
Because infantry is good at things cavalry and archers aren't.
Wars were won with pikemen, phalanxes and legions for a reason friend.
>>1294447
PLOUGH THE LILIES
>>1294062
>>1294290
Why won't this fucking shitty stirrup meme go away. One idiot wrote a book claiming the stirrup made Knights and chivalry and everything else medieval possible and everyone laps it up when if you actually put some thought into or even practical testing, it makes no sense.
It's almost as bad as the guy who wrote that book claiming that soldiers don't aim their weapons at enemies and try to intentionally miss, and that soldiers never want to kill their enemies. Which is easily proved wrong by actual battle reports and the fact that humans simply can't stop killing each other since the dawn of our species and war is full of stories of people mowing down lots of men without pause. I mean if almost all soldiers tried to miss WW1 wouldn't have happened.
>>1295012
>If you are refering to the act of charging with a lance couched under your arm then, yes, a stirrup was in fact necessary. The force would knock you off your horse otherwise. It's not as needed with other forms of attack, though, such as thrusting a spear.
No. You do not know how stirrups work. They do not keep the rider from moving backwards off their horse. Not at all. Stirrups slip over the fleet from the toes, if you are pushed back, you will simply slip out of the stirrups, you are not attached to them or clipped into them. Stirrups are platforms for your feet to stand in so you can stand in the saddle for better riding control. They have absolutely nothing to do with preventing you from sliding backwards off the horse, they prevent you falling sideways if you lean, and allow you to lean further.
What does prevent you from slipped off the back of a horse when your lance smashes into a solid object, is your saddle. Your saddle is the thing directly keeping you in place on the horse, saddles have a little wall at the back, preventing you from sliding backwards off the horse, it's quite literally a seat with a back. Saddles with prominent backs have been in use for heavy cavalry forever, well before the medieval, and that is what prevents you from falling off backwards, not the stirrups. Thats how heavy shock cavalry existed well before stirrups and why stirrups are unnecessary to shock cavalry. The real advantage of stirrups, like i said, is superior control of the horse in turning, and being able to stand while riding, like on the peddles of a bike.
>>1298379
I think you're looking at it wrong. There's a difference between your commander ordering you to storm across the trenches and fight and die by the thousands with no other choice, than there is to purposely shoot and kill whole bunches of people at your own accord and free will.
If I ever had to go to war, I would kill people as part of self defense and my orders, rather than because I relish the idea of killing people who are under the exact same bullshit orders from higher up as I am.
>>1294573
That guy´s a bishop, he carried a club so he wouldn´t shed blood.
I don´t think it worked though, clubs shed a lot of blood.
>>1298466
So do fists but it's still less bloody than a blade wound.
>>1294580
You can, because spears does not have magical enchant +100% dmg against cavalry.
>>1298395
>Roman saddle
Celtic actually. The horned saddle was lifted off the Celts.
Doesnt seem to matter as Roman Cavalry was eternally shit tier.
>>1298456
I don't completely disagree with you, of course plenty of soldiers were shooting to kill, but I think it's a narrow point of view to think that most if not all soldiers are happily capable of being murderers, and seeing the enemy as the devil and not just people in the same rut.
Consider the times in war, such as Christmas, when soldiers from each side would sometimes hang out and play cards together before going back to fighting the next day. When the fighting commenced again, they did not immediately dehumanize the enemy to warrant aiming straight for their pretty little faces, it's more that war is chaotic, blind and faceless and it's easier to shoot wildly and never know if you were the one to land any of those kills, than it is to purposely snipe the motherfucker who beat you at poker last night.
>>1298493
Drive your hand into a bed of nails and see what happens, now imagine your hand is a group of horses and the nails are spears.
Even if you can make a group of horses charge such a wall of steel and men if they are not armoured the first will get wounded very badly.
>>1298533
The club isnt a clerical status, its a military one.
It's called a Baculum. Similar to a marshall's baton, Roman generals held it as a symbol of office (i.e. I can beat you with this stick if you do not obey).
Carried over in the Medieval ages thanks to meme Holy Roman Empire of the Franks.
>>1298521
That's actually a load of fucking shit and you should kill yourself british did charge pikes directly once so the horse bodies would fuck up the formation and simply hopped of them and engaged in melee and that happened when armor was obsolete. Matt Easten made a video about it.
So fuck off with your meme knowledge.
>>1298493
>implying a wall of spears won't hurt you if you charge them at full speed
>implying the horse can't get scared, stop right before the pointy steel, and allow you to fall or be cut down
A couched lance is dangerously effective, and has the kinetic energy of a small artillery roundshot. But it only works if the knights are extremly disciplined, charge together, and if the enemy in front of them retreat.
Contrarly to what most people see in video games or movies, a charge is entirely psychological. That's it. Psychology, this is what matters ; Who's going to break first ? Will it be the knights who suddently stop before the wall of spears, or the spearmen who break formation out of the sudden scare of a heavy cavalry charge ?
During Napoleonic Warfare, the french cavalry men would charge at a slow pace, gallop only 200 meters before the enemy and draw their swords at only 50 meters, because when you're a simple guy with a bayonet, and you suddenly see a huge storm of beasts and a forest of steel being drawn from their scabbards, you shit yourself.
Back in medieval times, charges were far less disciplined. And you can compare different battles and different results to see what I'm talking about.
At Courtrai (Or the Golden Spurs), the flemish managed to hold their position together, the french knights were completly unhorsed and unable to pass through them.
At Castillon, the english troops were tired, massacred by Jean Bureau's artillery, dismounted, broken. That's when the french launched a cavalry assault and managed to freely cut through all of them with maximum ease.
>>1298521
May i ask what spears do you have in mind?
So all what was needed to stop cavalry charge was pointy object in front of soldiers. Yeah.
Straighten your hand with sword or dagger (both have pointy edges!) and you are all safe now.
And now it's my turn to give real life example:
Take your spear and go on the road. What will happen when car crashes into you? Car will be obviously damaged, driver safe and you very dead.
"But horses aren't cars"
Yes, but they are still heavy and fast enough to deadly ram you.
>>1298573
Horses aren't cars. They're living beasts. They were known to freeze, stop, brace, move away when you tried to charge them through a wall of pikes.
>>1298576
War horses were trained differently than the ones we use today for fucking horse racing you imbecile. Name some examples where cavalry couldn't proceed because le ebin horse scare.
>>1298544
this
>>1298544
Of course that a lot of horses will be wounded and dead.
To be honest i can't imagine horses stopping on their own. They are "herd animals" (i don't know if i translated it right), and will be running because other horses are running (like in stampede). Also were trained to not stop on obstacles.
Is it possible to infantry stand their ground against cavalry charge? Obviously yes. But as just you said:
"Contrarly to what most people see in video games or movies"
the same applies here. It's not Disney movie, where infantry is standing and knights are killing themselves just by looking at the spears, and viewers think "oh those stupid people from medieval times doing stupid things"
You gave one example of battle. Disciplined and high morale pikemen formations will win with outnumbered mob of random knights. But what will happen with disciplined pikemen formations against disciplined cavalry formations?
Also, my laughing at spears was about something different. Are pikes dangerous? Sure. But spears, what are they different from swords, when fighting a cavalry? IMO nothing. And in games spearman always get some stupid bonus against horses, and that shouldn't be a thing.
>>1298589
Courtrai, any battle with the swiss or the hussites, and later the spanish tercios. There's also instances where the horses died before they could reach the enemy's lines, like Crécy, Agincourt, or Poitiers.
>>1298759
Those are battles lost, not battles where horses got scared and run away.
>>1298759
>any battle with the swiss or the hussites, and later the spanish tercios
I would hesitate to use the term "any" given that examples to the contrary can always be provided.
>>1297359
I was about to say that Medieval Cavalry was a lot larger than that.
>>1298643
>But spears, what are they different from swords, when fighting a cavalry? IMO nothing. And in games spearman always get some stupid bonus against horses, and that shouldn't be a thing.
A spear can be braced against the ground so that the the wielder doesn't take the force of a charging horse. The longer reach also allow you to keep the cavalry further away which is nice, allows the second rank to also present and lets more than one guy stab at a time.
If you want proof that heavy infantry can beat cavalry just read up on Xenophon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cunaxa
>>1293989
literally every armed force ever in the entire history of the earth appears to disagree with you
>>1299671
>If you want proof that heavy infantry can beat cavalry just read up on Xenophon:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cunaxa
>Spend entire battle chasing after lighter troops, accomplishing nothing
Not sure if you picked the right battle?
>>1299671
A spear? 2 meters long spear braced against ground? And at the same time holding a shield?
And even if they threw shield away and did this, how effective will be a whooping ~80-100cm of "danger zone" against 4m lances or/and a rain of arrows?
Multiple rows and bracing against ground is a pike thing. So i'm holding my opinion, that spears are no good against cavalry.
>>1298364
IF YOU WANNA SURRENDER YOU GOTS TO SPEAK DUTCH
>>1298541
If you are talking about the KGL Hussar charge in Spain that broke a French Carré, that was a one time thing in the Napoleonic charge. If you charge unarmoured horses into walls of men they would reel and veer off.
Find me another example of cavalry breaking a carré of relativly fresh infantry.
>>1299909
Buddy, when Pikeman braced their pikes they either wore a shield in their off hand (Macedonian Phalanxes) or a sword (Tercio's first rank)
>>1298541
During the Battle of Garcia-Hernandez the French used Bayonets, not pikes, bayonets are atleast a meter shorter if braced in a square formation than any spear would be.
>>1299792
I'm guessing you didn't actually read it. The Persians took to the field with 6K of their best cavalry but either couldn't do a thing to the phalanx or were to scared to even try.
>>1300072
Not him but the instance that Matt Easton mentioned in a video was the Battle of Khushab in the Anglo-Persian War.
>>1300182
>Battle of Khushab
Link to the video?
>>1300082
Sword is not a shield. Also about Macedonians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa
>The sheer bulk and size of the spear required the soldiers to wield it with both hands, allowing them to carry only a 60 cm (24 in) shield (pelta) suspended from the neck to cover the left shoulder.
>>1300186
About halfway through in this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7g9y9ScKjE
>>1300072
I have no idea what that carré is, but:
Few example of battles when cavalry without help of infantry and artillery overwhelmed infantry, 17th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wenden_(1601)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Reval_(1602)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Weissenstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm
And as a bonus Battle of Kumeyki, where cavalry successfully broken 12-row wagon fort formation.
So it is possible.
Calvary cost 3x of an infantryman
Unless you're a steppe nomad, chances are that within your society, only the rich owned a horse
The Arabian horse arrived in Europe during the middle ages, before that you were riding something alot smaller and without actual horseshoes
>>1299909
First off lances were 3-4 meters including the balance which was almost 1.5 meters long on its own. The weapon then has to extend past the horse's face further reducing it's effective fighting length.
Second any idiot can hold a shield and brace a 2M stick on the ground. Granted if you want to actually wield it in combat you'd have to grab closer to the balance but it's still usable. Pick up a broom and try it yourself.
>>1300232
>Arabian horse arrived in Europe during the middle ages, before that you were riding something alot smaller
Are you retarded?
>>1300237
>he thinks large warhorses were commonplace like in the movies
>>1300247
>he thinks arabian horses were used in Europe
>not destrieres or roucey's
>>1300234
1,5m long balance is exaggeration i think. Lances were even 6m long, with only 0,8m long balance. + "past horse face" 60cm, that's around 1,5m of loss.
And thanks for the pic, but it only keeps me in my opinion, as it doesn't seem very cavalry proof. I don't want to imagine charging ~800kg crashing into this.
>only so many horses
>driving a car takes a week to master, riding a horse takes years + extreme wealth
>bows take years and years to master
It's better to just have ten thousand guys with pointy sticks for a year and a half war, desu.
>>1294325
Got btfo by the Roman infantry square meme.
>>1300222
A carre is the same thing as a square.
It seems my lack of knowledge about the 17th century is shown here, I knew of none of these battles.
I wasn't disputing the fact that cavalry could break an infantry, I am just stating that it's rare
>>1300326
>A carre is the same thing as a square.
Oh, thanks. I guessed that, but wasn't sure.
>I wasn't disputing the fact that cavalry could break an infantry, I am just stating that it's rare
It was rare not because they tried a lot of times and rarely succeeded, but because they didn't try it at all. In 16th century western Europe cavalry declined and changed its tactics.
Why? If you don't know why something happened, it's almost always because of money.
Quantity over quality. Quality wins battles, but quantity wins wars. Why hire one cavalryman, when you can hire few infantryman instead. Also in western Europe % of nobles was very low, ~1% and less. But in Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth it was 8-15%, so they could afford full cavalry armies, and that means a lot of possibilities of serious cavalry-infantry fights.
>>1300324
>driving a car takes a week to master
shit driver detected
>>1294505
you should go back to school then, m8
because as always, infantry were the bulk of the army - they were the expendables who did most of the killing and most of the dying, cavalry were situational units to be used as a shock weapon and to pursue fleeing enemies and ranged units were mostly used in sieges or when one of the armies had a superior strength in numbers
>>1300178
>but either couldn't do a thing to the phalanx or were to scared to even try.
That is all creative interpretation on your part. For all we know they merely fell back and drew away Cyrus' best troops from the field of battle.
>>1293989
im convinced you are a retard
![hith-charge-of-the-light-brigade-british-attack-E[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FIAvrjN.jpg "hith-charge-of-the-light-brigade-british-attack-E[1].jpg")
>>1298576
just like dogs and yet there are several breeds (mostly pitbulls) of them that care pretty little about self-preservation and will attack until they're killed because no matter how much pain you inflict in them, they have a superb pain tolerance that makes them keep assaulting their prey until it dies.
and guess what, those dogs were carefully bred by humans to achieve those traits... i don't see why it wouldn't work with horses since they can retain the same aggression as dogs.
but yeah, i've read about the ruskies or the prussians (can't remember) throwing themselves on the ground and faking death upon a charge from french cavalry under napoleon's reign because the horses refuse to trample on people and it's also common sense that if you charge a tight formation of unmovable men/with pikes or long weapons (including rifles with bayonets) the horses will stop in their tracks once they reach the final meters losing all the momentum leaving the horsemen vunerable
>>1300305
The horses wouldn't crash into it because horses won't charge into something solid. Literally get on a horse and see if you can get it to run into a wall.
But we don't even have to armchair general this. Just look up some historical battles where cavalry failed to overcome infantry. I'm not claiming that infantry counters cavalry. But if you think you know more than every commander to lead an army since the horse was domesticated then you're on the wrong board.
>>1293989
Because an idiot with a pointed stick can kill the flower of chivalry clad in the finest armor atop a proud expensive destrier.
Read a book dude.
>>1300443
He's an American
Guise
Most Cavalry wouldn't charge into a dense formation of men with spears/pikes or even swords. It's probably the dense group of men that's more scary to the horse than the actual weapons, it's not that horses don't understand what a sharp object is but they don't have the same knowledgeable fear of them as we do.
They'd charge a lose formation much easier. They'd probably try to go for the gaps between the men, which at least allows the rider to get a good passing swing or thrust.
Some cavalry was specialised and trained to charge headfirst into dense infantry with spears. Those horses needed a hell of a lot conditioning and even then their eyes would be partially covered so that they couldn't quite see what they were running into. The horse and heir riders would be totally covered in armour.
>>1300400
The battle he referred to was Garcia Hernandez, taking place the day after the French had been routed at Salamanca.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garc%C3%ADa_Hern%C3%A1ndez
>>1300891
People are not a solid wall.
But whatever, quick, somebody needs to go back in time to tell those horses that they are fake horses, because they crashed into solid objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujFEBsiwNk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiPTQx0ac8Y
So basically testudo is ultimate anti cavalry formation, because, eh horses are scared, yeah.
Just like in battle of Cannae.
>>1301129
>Most Cavalry wouldn't charge into a dense formation of men with spears/pikes or even swords. It's probably the dense group of men that's more scary to the horse than the actual weapons, it's not that horses don't understand what a sharp object is but they don't have the same knowledgeable fear of them as we do.
Ok, Let's say:
>People wouldn't charge into a dense formation of men(...).It's propably the dense group of men that's more scary to the people than(...).
A little bit drastic, but:
>Adult man wouldn't charge into a dense formation of children(...).It's probably the dense group of children that's more scary to the adult man than (...).
>Bulls wouldn't charge into a dense formation of men(...).It's probably the dense group of men that's more scary to the bulls than (...).
>Elephants wouldn't charge into a dense formation of men(...).It's probably the dense group of men that's more scary to the elephants than (...).
See how unbelievable these are? So why do you believe this sentence make sense with horses?
>>1301232
Horses do have the same self preservation as we do. This is why war horses for heavy cavalry were specially trained and became incredibly expensive for anyone that's not a steppe nomad.
>>1298466
>That guy´s a bishop, he carried a club so he wouldn´t shed blood.
Ridiculous Victorianism spread by Dungeons and Dragons.
>>1298521
>>1293989
Because good infantry with good equipment will defeat cavalry, and archers are horribly overrated.
>>1293989
Infantry is necessary majority of the time unless you are horse archers. Cav's role is to support the main infantry by beating enemies cav and then cycle charging the rear of the enemy's infantry while they are preoccupied with fight yours.
I'm inclined to believe that they used mostly stealth archers.
>>1298759
>coutrai
Pit traps and field fortifications are not the same thing a spears, you idiot.
>swiss
Who are armed wiht pikes, not spears, which allows them to attack the horses before the rider can retaliate. Evenm then, the gendermes flat out rode through a fucking swiss force on their armored horses in one battle, and marignano sees the swiss totally unable to stop them from attacking them at will, launching over a dozen charges.
>hussites
wagon forts have literally nothing to do with fucking spears. The horse is physically incapable of smashing through the wagon, even if it collides with it. The same is not true of a man wielding a spear, and the horse knows it.
>Crécy, Agincourt, or Poitiers.
None of these invovle the horses being spooked
>died before they could reach the enemy's lines
The french horsemen DID reach the English lines, in all of these battles. And in all of them, the most the English are able to do is disrupt the cavalry charge, not stop it from hitting them.
>>1299671
Spear are not pikes. They do not do the same things. If you brace it, the man with the lance will likely outreach you by a considerable margin.
This gets you stabbed.
>>1300891
Protip: A stallion with intact balls is a fuckload more aggressive than anything you're thinking of. Put in a a thousands strong herd or other running horses, a man it trusts on its back, and get it moving, and it isn't going to stop until you kill it or the rider digs the bit in hard.
Also, it's going to kick and bite people.
>>1301129
They'll do what you train them to do.
>>1302112
Total war isn't real life.
>>1294961
Ignore it
Nobody knows how feudalism works
>>1293989
>Magically conjuring up enough warhorses for every infantryman.
>Magically conjuring up enough armor for all of them.
>Magically conjuring up enough fodder for all the horses.
>>1301771
An infantry force deprived of cavalry support and with exposed flanks rout when charged in said flank and attack from the front
Who would expect that
>>1294603
>to seize and hold ground and repel attack
Because holding ground is fucking useless lmao
>>1294545
>post battle where Norman horsemen defeat Saxon footmen
I agree with your notion, but bad example
This is the batlle were
Alexander fucked up Darius Iii. Persian fuckface had chariots and Alexander trap those cocksuckers in a U shapedformation. Ater that, not so many chariots.
>>1302313
That isn't even the hardest part
>conjuring up enough money for all that shit
